The Journal of the American Oriental Society
Vol.113 No.4
Oct-Dec 1993
pp.538

COPYRIGHT @ American Oriental Society 1993

¡@

Two PASSAGES IN THE TWO available versions of Tshalpa Kun-dga'
rdo-rje's Deb ther/gter dmar po or Hu lan debter, namely, a
chronology of China's dynastic successions from the Zhou to the Tang
dynasties and from the Tang to the Yuan dynasties,(2) that were
adapted by later Tibetan historians, are owed to a report (or
reports) transmitted to him by a certain [']Dzam-bha-la (*Jambhala),
to whose name is affixed the following phrase:(3)
1. sto-shri-mgon [TSHAL 17].
2. sti-shri-mgon [TSHAL 25].
3. stwo-shri-mgon [TSHAL1 8b].
4. sogs-shri-mgon [TSHAL1 12b].(4)
G. Roerich interpreted the first two elements of this phrase in
Tshal-pa's work to mean "Imperial Preceptor" (dishi); and he was
followed in this by several other scholars.(5) However, none of them
addressed the problem that logically follows from this
interpretation, namely that of the meaning and/or function of mgon.
In addition, they also did not comment on the then quite impossible
and unprecedented situation of having a title within a personal
name, if indeed they would be inclined to take the ignored mgon as
part of his name. D. Seyfort Ruegg also referred to G. Roerich's
observation, but he retained the reading tu-shri, and was
disinclined to equate it explicitly with dishi;(6) his omission of
the last element mgon in his translation-cumparaphrase is no doubt
an oversight. The phrase in all its orthographic variability is left
standing as it is in the Japanese translation of Tshal-pa's text by
S. Inaba and H. Sato.(7) The recent Chinese translation of a version
of Tshal-pa's work by Chen Qingying and Zhou Runnian transcribes it
by, respectively, duoshiligun [UNKNOWN TEXT OMITTED] deshiligun
[UKNOWN TEXT OMITTED], whereas Tang Chi'an's translation of Yar-lung
Jo-bo Sakya-rin-chen's chronicle of 1376 renders it by the
problematic guoshi huzhu [UNKNOWN TEST OMITTED].(8) In their
translations of, respectively, Dpal'byor bzang-po's text and `Gos
Lo-tsa-ba's work, Chen Qingying and Guo Heqing merely transcribe it
into Chinese without further comment.(9) From this we may conclude
that they did not identify this phrase and, more importantly, that
they at least did not understand it as reflecting dishi. We may also
note here that none of the available listings of imperial
preceptors, whether in Tibetan or Chinese sources, mention a
*Jambhala as a dishi.(10) Most recently, L. Petech suggested that
tvansri-mgon (sic!) of Bu-ston's biography - the text actually has
tu-shri-mgon-reflects Chinese tuan-shih kuan (i.e., Pinyin Tuanshi
guan) [UNKNOWN TEXT OMITTED] "judge, magistrate, legal officer," the
equivalent of Mongol jar[gamma]uji.(11)
Another version of this expression is found in one of the
biographies of Sa-skya Pandita (1182-1251), where it is written as
rdo-shri-mgon. As far as I am aware, it is first met with in the
versified biography of 1579 by the Rin-spungs-pa prince Ngag-dbang
'jig-rten dbang-phyug 1542-?1625).(12) There we learn that the
rdo-shi-mgon was one of the two envoys who were allegedly sent by
prince Goden in 1244 to invite Sa-skya Pandita to his court in
Liangzhou; the other one is referred to as dzi-ba-kha. We also
encounter the former, this time as rdor-sri-mgon, in the letter of
invitation which the Mongol prince purportedly addressed to Saskya
Pandita, that is quoted in full for the first time in A-mes-zhabs
Ngag-dbang kun-dga' bsod-nams' (1597-1659) biography of the
Sa-skya-pa hierarch, which is contained in his well-known history of
the leading families of Sa-skya of 1629.(13) Of interest is that
here the name of his companion is given as the official (dpon)
Jo-dar-ma.
The period during which the Mongols in China exercised a measure of
political control over the Tibetan cultural area, that is, from 1240
to 1368, allowed for an influx of a substantial number of Mongol,
Uyghur and Chinese loanwords into the lexicon of classical written
Tibetan. (14) As is to be expected, most of these are of an
administrative and institutional nature, and the vast majority are
of Chinese rather than of Mongol/Uyghur origin; as far as I am
aware, written Tibetan did not incorporate any Tangut loan words. It
is for this reason that, at least in theory, sto-shri-mgon or its
variants can derive from either a Chinese or a Mongol/Uyghur
original. Orthographically speaking, the ligature st, where the s is
a superscript, is now phonologically realized as /t/ in most Tibetan
dialects. On the evidence of variants tu and to, we can surmise that
this may have already been the case in the first half of the
fourteenth century, if not earlier.(15) Similarly, the ligature mg
with m as a prescript of radical g, is now realized as /g/. In the
present instance, the orthographic stability of mgon is simply
indicative of phonological and, above all, semantic unambiguity; it
means "protector." However, the phonology of the first element of
the expression was apparently so foreign to the Tibetan ear that no
semantic sense could be made of it, and the result was an
orthographic free-for-all. The second element shri is attested in
the witnesses of Tshal-pa's work, not merely as a phonological
approximation of Chinese shi as in dishi, guoshi, etc., also shri,
but also of shi [UNKNOWN TEXT OMITTED] as in da[i]shi,
"Grand-Master,"16 and shi [UNKNOWN TEXT OMITTED] as in yuanshi,
"President."(17) In the absence of evidence to the contrary, and
recognizing that, in the Tibetan and Mongol literature of the
period, titles usually appear after the proper names of individuals,
it is clear that this expression very probably represents a title.
Tshal-pa's first mention of *Jambhala occurs in the following
sentence:(18)
... [the afore]said was observed by *Jambhala stoshri-mgon on the
basis of an Old Chinese chronicle (deb-gter)[.] Recorded in writing
in the temple of Lhasa.
Yar-lung Jo-bo inserts, between mthong-ba and lhasa'i, the phrase
"by Si-tu Dge-ba'i blo-gros [= Tshal-pa's alternate name!, the most
supreme of those who speak of the way (tshul) [in which]
Sino-tibetan [relations were maintained!" (rgya-bod-kyi-tshul
smra-ba-rnamskyi nang-nas mchog-tu gyur-pa si-tu
dge-ba'i-blo-groskyis), which explicitly provides a subject for the
finite perfective "recorded in writing" (yi-ger bris-pa yinno //).
It is transparent that mthong-ba is equally to be taken as a finite
verb, so that I believe we have to countenance the hiatus implied by
variant f which reads a semi-final marker / despite the absence of a
final particle in *o. The "[afore]said" (zhes[-pa]) concerns a brief
chronology of the Chinese emperors, from the Zhou (ce'u) to the Tang
dynasties, with particular mention of the famous pilgrim and
translator Xuanzang 596-664) and the fortunes of the famous Jo-bo
statue of Sakyamuni at the age of eleven that was brought to Tibet
by princess Wencheng. Just prior to the passage quoted above,
Tshal-pa closes his account with the statement:(19)
When Sri'i-glen Kong-jo [Ch. Shuilian Gongzhu [UNKNOWN TEXT
OMITTED!,= Wencheng], in Tibetan [she is] called
Mtsho'inang-du-padmo [In-lake Lotus], the daughter of Thang
Tha'i-dzung [Ch. Tang Taizong], had come to Tibet, the Jo-bo Sakya
[statue] arrived in Tibet. From that time up to the present seven
hundred years have elapsed.
This passage is absent from Yar-lung Jo-bo's text. The Chinese
sources are quite explicit about the fact that princess Wencheng -
she was not the daughter of Taizong himself - arrived in Tibet in
641, so that the implied date of this particular passage would be
1341.(20) This means *Jambhala may have related this account to
Tshal-pa in that year.(21) Alternatively, it is of course also
possible that *Jambhala was transmitting a text which itself was
either dated to the year 1341, or which he himself had dated to that
year, for there is no absolute guarantee that this particular dating
corresponds to the year in which he had provided Tshal-pa with the
text, or even that it is not a gloss by the latter to identify the
year in which he received this information.
The second entry of *Jambhala's name is preceded by a laconic
account of the violent death of the deposed Zhaoxian emperor of the
southern Song who, having been exiled by Qubilai to the Tibetan
cultural area, had at some time become a monk in Sa-skya
monastery.(22) Many years hence, in 1323, he was executed at the
order of emperor Gegan [Yingzong emperor, r. 19 April 1320-4
September 1323!. Tshal-pa's text reads:(23)
During the thirteenth year of ci-dben (Ch. zhiyuan, [UNKNOWN TEXT
OMITTED] [in 1276] from [the time] Se-chen rgyal-po [Qubilai]
dwelled at the capital, when three years had passed since the
Sman-rtse emperor G.yi'u-ju (Ch. Youzhu) stayed in the capital [of
Hangzhou], minister ('ching/ching-sang, Ch. chengxiang) Bayan
conquered the Song empire and the emperor was dispatched to Sa-skya
[monastery in exile]. Then, because [he] was subsequently murdered
during [the reign] of emperor Gegan, [his] blood became milk [due to
his innocence]. The empire of the Mongols is called ta'i-dben (Ch.
Da Yuan). The [afore]-said statement (smras) by `Dzambha-la sto-shri
mgon was recorded [by me Tshal-pa].
The first thing we notice about this passage is the way in which the
date for the first event is given, which allows for the assumption
that Tshal-pa's source for this information was ultimately of
Chinese provenance. Tshal-pa's Tibetan rather neatly distinguishes
between the social positions of the two protagonists, Qubilai and
the Zhaoxian emperor, by deploying the honorific "dwelled" (bzhugs)
for the former and non-honorific "stayed" (bsdad) for the latter.
The conquest of the Southern Song was formally concluded by 14 June
1276,(24) or very shortly thereafter, in Shangdu, Qubilai's summer
residence. The terminus ante quo of this passage, which coincides
with Zhaoxian's execution, indicates that an encounter between
*Jambhala and Tshal-pa might have taken place around the years 1324
or 1325, when the latter had journeyed to the imperial court.(25)
There is a curious passage towards the end of Tshalpa's chronicle,
but prior to the "appendix" that is taken up by the reproduction of
an edict of 1309 proclaimed by emperor Kulug [Wuzong emperor, r. 21
June 1307-27 January 1311!, which, too, must be based on a Chinese
source, although its provenance is not made clear.(26) It iS
concerned with an explanation of several dynastic titles beginning
with that of the Tang and ending with that of Da Yuan. The origin of
the latter title is identified as having been taken from a work
entitled Ji-bu-yi/si, which can only be a reference to the Zhou Yi
or Yi Jing, the Book of Changes.(27) The textual position of this
passage is rather odd, since it properly belongs at the end of its
discussion of the imperial succession of China, or at least at some
point in its survey of the Mongol empire. Missing altogether in
Yarlung Jo-bo's text, it reappears in Dpal-'byor bzang-po's work,
where it is found in the chapter on the Mongol imperial succession,
and where, significantly, it is tied to the Da Yuan tongzhi [UNKNOWN
TEXT OMITTED], a set of legal documents that was compiled in 1315
and issued in 1323.(28) Tshal-pa's and Yar-lung Jo-bo's accounts of
the imperial succession in China are explicitly said to have been
derived from information provided by *Jambhala, and both terminate
with the mention of Qubilai's conquest of the Southern Song.
Tshal-pa's text is quite different from Dpal-'byor bzang-po's work,
however. The latter does not mention the Song dynasty or, for that
matter, the Southern Song in the context of China - this is done
elsewhere, namely in the survey of the Mongol empire - and instead
speaks of Cinggis Qan's conquests. It is at this point that the text
adds a very significant detail in that it explicitly connects
*Jambhala to the Da Yuan tongzhi.(29) This might indicate that this
work may very well have been one of *Jambhala's principal sources
for his transmission of these details of Chinese history to the
Tibetans.
The Da Yuan tongzhi is known to have existed in two versions, one in
Chinese and one in Mongol.(30) The latter version was already in
existence in 1323. Dpal'byor bzang-po appears to have had direct
access to one or the other version of this work, inasmuch as he
makes this remarkable statement:(31)
The original [version] of this book [the Da Yuan tongzhi! existed in
the legal department (khrims-ra) of the Central Secretariat
cong-zhu-shing, Ch. zhongshusheng). A copy (ngo-shus) of it was
given to Grand-Govenor Dbang-phyug brtson-'grus himself by the
minister (chengxiang) Sbeg-so-kha [= Beg Boqal.(32) The Da Yuan
tongzhi, originally in Uyghur script yugur-gyi yi-ge ngo-bo),
existed together with [a version] in the [?] 'Phags-pa script
(hor-yig-ma). Although [the
copy] was carried off by Yar-lung-pa,(33) [I] have written about
[this] topic (skabs-don), since these items [of the text] are
[still] in [my] mind.
We do not know in what language the Da Yuan tongzhi was transmitted
to Tibet, but on the basis of the above it may very well have been
the Mongol version, since Dbang-phyug brtson-'grus, like many other
highranking Tibetan officials, was, at a minimum, acquainted with
that language as well as with Chinese. Further supporting evidence
for bilingualism of the Tibetan ruling class during Tibet's "Mongol
period" occurs in the political biography-cum-apology of his great
rival and, after a protracted struggle, his vanquisher, Ta'i-si-tu
Byang-chub rgyal-mtshan (1302-64).(34) In an entry dated probably
sometime in 1356, we read that the Grand-Governor was able to
address Commander-in-Chief (du-dben-sha, Ch. duyuanshuai) Gzhon[-nu]
rgyal[-mtshan] in Mongol, and the implication of the passage is that
Ta'i-si-tu was well aware of what was being said. Elsewhere, in an
entry dated slightly after the New Year of 1348,(35) Ta'i-si-tu
writes that a chap called `Bum-pa Rag-sha, who may have been a
Tibetan, related to him the comments made by some Mongols who saw
that the local people of 'On[-pa] prostrated themselves before him,
circumambulated him, and wept for joy upon seeing him. The Mongols
were quite surprised at this - Ta'i-si-tu's reputation had been
smeared, especially, by Dbang-phyug brtson-'grus - and remarked
among themselves "in Mongol" (hor-skad-du):(36)
Grand-Governor Dbang[-phyug] brtson[-'grus] alleges that he
[Ta'i-si-tu] is an evil person[, but] this does not appear to be the
case. Tears come from [their] eyes by the mere [sight of] this man.
This is an act which is hard [to follow].
In the passage already referred to, G. Roerich draws attention to a
remark in Bu-ston's biography to the effect that an imperial mission
headed by Bha-de ching-dben(37) and *Jambhala arrived at his see of
Zhwa-lu monastery on the fifteenth day of the ninth lunar month, 22
October, of 1344, to present him with an invitation from emperor
To[gamma]on Temur [Shundi emperor, r. 19 July 1333-10 September
1368! to come to the capital. We do not have the official "letter of
invitation." Well known to the court - at least one of his writings
was most likely translated into Chinese during To[gamma]on Temur's
reign(38) - Bu-ston was visited by *Prajna, a Mongol prince,
sometime in 1353.39 He was probably urged to come to the court on
yet another occasion, for we have a written imperial reaction to his
disinclination to do so, a decree of sorts that must be dated to the
year 1355.40 These missions in connection with Bu-ston are, as far
as I have been able to determine, nowhere mentioned in Chinese
sources. But this is in itself hardly surprising, inasmuch as it is
unlikely that a simple invitation would have merited a special entry
in, for instance, the Yuanshi, and there is no evidence that these
invitations had a purpose other than a purely religious one.
Another imperial envoy, who also does not seem to be registered in
Chinese sources, was one called Klurgyal and he arrived in Tibet
sometime during the year 1357, in order to present an
invitation/order to Blachen Bsod-nams blo-gros (1332-62), the abbot
of Saskya monastery's Dus-mchod Residence, to come to the capital;
he was subsequently installed as a dishi. L. Petech interprets the
title affixed to his name - he writes here ta sri mgon - as
reflecting Chinese ta-shih kuan [unknown] which he glosses by
commenting that "the rather vague Chinese title means Office (kuan)
of a High Commissioner (ta-shi)."(41) However, the reading of the
text he cites is tu-shri-mgon, which has a number of variant
readings, none of which commence with ta.(42) In other words, we
have here precisely the same title that was predicated of *Jambhala.

Given the above, it is possible to identify this title? We have seen
that in every case the individuals thus styled were envoys, who were
sent by the Mongol court to transmit an invitation to leading
Tibetan scholar-saints. Given the nature of their missions and the
fact that Tibetan prelates often played important roles in which
religious and political concerns were inextricably intertwined, they
must have held a rank high enough to be commensurate with their
task. Indeed, with Sa-skya Pandita and Bsod-nams blo-gros, the
invitation by, respectively, prince Goden and emperor To[gamma]on
Temur, had definite political dimensions, although of course in the
case of the former, these were much more modest than what is usually
alleged in the Tibetan and non-Tibetan secondary literature.
Moreover, at least for Bsod-nams blo-gros, but probably also for
Sa-skya Pandita and other ranking Tibetan men of the cloth, these
invitations involved certain legal issues, for they must have been
accompanied by official proclamations, which formalized the new
relationship into which the prelate and the court had entered, in
addition to which his representative at his see also had to be
formally appointed prior to his departure. It is for these reasons
that I should like to propose that the expression in all its
orthographic variability goes back to Chinese tuanshi guan, which
itself reflects Mongol jar[gamma]uci. A possible reflex of tuan, and
that is all it really is, may be found in the variants
twan-shri-mgon and stong-shri-mgon that are preserved in the texts
of Dpal-'byor bzang-po and, if this be not merely a typographical
error, in a version of Dpa'-bo's chronicle;43 Tibetan tu, to, etc.,
may go back to a northwestern Chinese pronunciation of tuan.
Another, perhaps less likely, possibility is that it echoes dushi
guan [unknown] which, however, does not seem to occur in extant Yuan
sources. However, it is attested in the Ming shilu, and probably in
other Ming sources as well.(44)
To[gamma]on Temur was to all appearances well served by dishi
Kun-dga' rgyal-mtshan (1310-58), so that we can hardly consider
Bu-ston's invitation to have been an attempt on the part of the
court to undo the dishi in one way or another. We may speculate that
an additional reason why *Jambhala had come to Tibet had to do with
the enormous political upheavals (some would say rebellions) that
were taking place during this time in Central Tibet as well as in
Mnga'-ris, troubles that must have required imperial arbiters and
legal officers of sorts. It is nonetheless curious that Ta'i-si-tu
does not mention him at all, but then his autobiography swiftly
passes over the 1330s and early 1340s.
We have seen that the earliest attested date during which *Jambhala
acted as Tshal-pa's informant may have been in the year 1341, so
that we cannot fully agree with the categorical statement of L.
Petech, who writes that *Jambhala had supplied Tshal-pa with
information on Chinese history when he had come to Tibet in 1344.45
In other words, we may have to assume that *Jambhala could have been
dispatched to Central Tibet on two occasions, or that Tshal-pa was
in China proper in 1341. To be sure, textual evidence is lacking so
far for either assumption.
BIBLIOGRAPHIC ABBREVIATIONS
Chen Qingying. Han Zang shiji. Lhasa: Xizang Renmin Chubanshe, 1986.
Translation Of RGYA. Chen Qingying and Zhou Runnian. Hongshi. Lhasa:
Xizang Renmin Chubanshe, 1988. Translation Of TSHAL. DPA' Dpa'-bo
Gtsug-lag phreng-ba. Chos 'byung mkhas pa'i dga' ston, ed. Rdo-rje
rgyal-po. 2 vols. Beijing: Minzu Chubanshe, 1986. DPA'(P) Dpa'-bo
Gtsug-lag phreng-ba. Chos 'byung mkhas pa'i dga' ston. 2 vols. New
Delhi, 1980. Inaba, Sh. and Sato, H. Huran deputeru (Hu-lan
deb-ther) - chibetto nendaiki. Kyoto, 1964. Translation of an edited
version Of TSHAL 1. Macdonald, A. "Preambule h la lecture d'un Rgya
bod yig tshang." Journal Asiatique CCLI (1963): 53-159. Petech, L.
Central Tibet and the Mongols. The Yuan-Sa-skya Period of Tibetan
History. Serie Orientale Roma LXV. Rome: Istituto Italiano per il
Medio ed Estremo Oriente, 1990. RGYA Stag-tshang-pa Dpal-'byor
bzang-po. Rgya bod yig tshang chen mo. Ed. Dung-dkar Blo-bzang
'phrin-las. Chengdu: Si-khron mi-rigs dpe-skrun-khang, 1985. RGYA(R)
Ibid. Rgya bod kyi yig tshang mkhas pa dga' byed chen mo'i dkar chab
gdog(!). J. F. Rock manuscript. East Asia Library, University of
Washington. RGYA(T) Ibid. Rgya bod yig tshang mkhas pa dga' byed. 2
vols. Thimphu, 1979. Schuh, D. Erlasse und Sendschreiben
mongolischer Herrscher fur tibetische Geistliche. Skt. Augustin:
Wissenschaftsverlag, 1977. Ruegg, D. S. The Life of Bu ston rin po
che. Serie Orientale Roma XXXIV. Rome: Istituto Italiano per il
Medio ed Estremo Oriente, 1966. si Si-tu Pan-chen Chos-kyi
'byung-gnas. Bsgrub [b]rgyud karma kam tshang brgyud pa rin po che'i
rnam par thar pa rab 'byams nor bu zla ba chu shel gyi phreng ba.
Vol. 1, New Delhi, 1972. TAI Ta'i-si-tu Byang-chub rgyal-mtshan.
Bka' chems mthong ba don Idan. Rlangs kyi po ti bse ru. Ed.
Chab-spel Tshebrtan phun-tshogs. Lhasa: Bodljongs mi-rigs
dpe-skrunkhang, 1987. Pp. 103-373. TAI1 Ibid. Lha rigs rlangs kyi
rnam thar. New Delhi, 1974. Pp.212-836. TAI2 lbid. Ta si tu Byang
chub rgyal mtshan gyi bka' chems. Lhasa: Bod-ljongs mi-rigs
dpe-skrun-khang, 1989. Pp. 1-282. TAIch Zanla Awang and Yu Wanshi.
Lang shijiazu shi. Ed. Chen Qingying. Lhasa: Xizang Renmin
Chubanshe, 1989. Translation Of TAI. Tang Chi'an. Yalong zunzhe
jiaofa shi. Lhasa: Xizang Renmin Chubanshe, 1989. Translation Of
YAR. TSHAL Tshal-pa Kun-dga' rdo-rje. Deb ther dmar po. Ed. and
comm. Dung-dkar Blo-bzang 'phrin-las. Pre-cin: Mi-rigs
dpe-skrun-khang, 1981. TSHAL1 Ibid. Gangtok, 1961. Wang Yao. "Nan
Song xiaodi zhaoxian yishi kaobian." Xizang yanjiu 1 (1981): 65-76.
YAR Yar-lung Jo-bo Sakya-rin-chen. Yar lung chos 'byung. Ed. Dbyangs
- can. Chengdu: Si-khron mi-rigs dpeskrun-khang, 1988. YAR1 Ibid.
Ed. Ngag-dbang. Lhasa: Bod-1jongs mi-rigs dpeskrun-khang, 1988. (1)
A preliminary version of this paper was read on 27 April 1991 at the
Central Asia in Berkeley conference, University of California,
Berkeley. The Tibetan transliteration of the secondary literature
used in this paper has been standardized throughout. The
bibliography itemizes only those sources that are quoted more than
once. (2) See TSHAL 12-17, 24-25 [TSHAL1 6b-8b, 12a-12b, Inaba-Sato
1964: 47-51, 59-60: Chen-Zhou 1988: 11-15, 21-22!. These passages
are reproduced in most of the subsequent Tibetan historiographical
literature. (3) A possibly, but not necessarily, independent textual
witness of this expression is found in Bu-ston Rin-chen-grub's
(1290-1364) two-part bibliography of 1355 to 1366 by his disciple
Sgra-tshad-pa Rin-chen rnam-rgyal (1318-88). There, in Ruegg (1966:
122, 23a), we read namely tu-shri-mgon, a variant which, as we shall
see below, is also attested elsewhere. (4) Another variant of this
phrase is twan-shri-mgon, which we find Stag-tshang-pa Dpal-'byor
bzang-po's Rgya bod yig tshang mkhas pa dga' byed compilation of
1434-50 - see below note 16 - in RGYA 116 [RGYA(R) 70a, RGYA (T)1
164, Chen 1986: 73!. (5) G. Roerich tr., The Blue Annals (New Delhi:
Motilal Banarsidass, 1976), vii, 56 ad 'Gos Lo-tsa-ba
Gzhon-nu-dpal's (1392-1481) Blue Annals of 1476 to 1478, the Deb
gter sngon po (New Delhi: International Academy of Indian Culture,
1976), 52, and then Macdonald (1963: 128, note 109) and also, it
seems, in P. K. S[phi]rensen, A Fourteenth Century Tibetan
Historical Work, Rgyl-rabs gsal-ba'i me-long: Author, Date and
Sources, A Case Study (Copenhagen: Akademisk Forlag, 1986), 235ff.
(6) Ruegg (1966: 122, note 1). (7) Inaba-sato (1964: 51, 60, 75).
(8) Chen-Zhou (1988: 15, 22) and Tang (1989: 20, 25) ad YAR 26, 34
[YAR1 28, 36]. Tang Chi'an's guoshi huzhu is meaningful - guoshi
means "national preceptor" and huzhu "protector" (mgon-po) - but
misleading. (9) See their different transcriptions in, respectively,
Chen (1986: 66, 73) and the Qingshi (Lhasa: Xizang Renmin Chubanshe,
1985), 36, ad Deb ther sngon po, Stod-smad [vol. 1], ed. Dung-dkar
Blo-bzang 'phrin-las (Chengdu: Si-khron mirigs dpe-skrun-khang,
1985), 81. S. Bira, "Some Remarks on the Hu-lan deb-ther of Kun-dga'
rdo-rje," Acta Orientalia Hungarica XVII (1964): 72, also does not
equate the first two syllables of this phrase with dishi. (10) See
Tucci (1949: 15, 252-53), Zhaqi Siqin [= Secen Jagcid], Menggu yu
Xizang lishi guanxi zhi yanjiu (Taibei: Zhengzhong Shuju Yinhang,
1978), 93-94, and Wang Furen - Chen Qingying, Meng Zang minzu guanxi
shilue (Beijing: Zhongguo Shehui Kexue Chubanshe, 1985), 35-38, for
essentially the Chinese dossier, and TSHAL 48-52 [TSHAL1 22a-4b,
Inaba-Sato 1964: 119-26, Chen-Zhou 1988: 43-47] and YAR 168 [YAR]
161, Tang 1989: 95! for the earliest Tibetan listings. (11) See
Petech (1990: 101-2). (12) See his Sa skya pandita kun dga' rgyal
mtshan dpal bzang po'i rnam par thar pa bskal pa bzang po'i legs
lam, The Slobbshad Tradition of the Sa-skya Lam-'bras, vol. I
(Dehradun: Skya Centre, 1983), 240. (13) See his Sa skya'i gdung
rabs ngo mtshar bang mdzod [Sde-dge print] (New Delhi: Bonpo
Monastic Centre, 1975), 134 [= ed. Rdo-rje rgyal-po (Pe-cin: Mi-rigs
dpeskrun-khang, 1986, 118)!. The translation in Chen Qingying, Gao
Hefu, and Zhou Runnian, Sajia shixi shi (Lhasa: Xizang Renmin
Chubanshe, 1989), 81, transcribes the phrase by duo'er si gun
[UNKNOWN TEXT OMITTED]. For an analysis of this letter of
invitation, see Schuh (1977: 31-41), where he shows, by way of a
microphilological analysis of the various witnesses of the text,
that there is ample reason to doubt the integrity of this letter. As
has been indicated severally by D. P. Jackson, A-mes-zhabs' Saskya
Pandita biography is by-and-large based on the earlier one by Glo-bo
Mkhan-chen Bsod-nams lhun-grub (1456-1532), which functions as a
kind of preface to his commentary on Sa-skya Pandita's Mkhas pa
rnams 'jug pa'i sgo. A-meszhabs inserts the letter from Goden within
the line in Glo-bo Mkhan-chen's Mkhas pa rnams jug pa'i sgo'i rnam
par bshad pa rig gnas gsal byed (New Delhi, 1979), 61: .. pho nya ..
bsngags te / [here A-mes-zhabs inserts the letter] sku nas sgres na
yang.. The dossier on Sa-skya Pandita's relations with the Mongols
has also been severely reduced by D. P. Jackson's recent
demonstration that another well-known letter, this time allegedly
addressed by Sa-skya Pandita to his fellow Tibetans and, again,
allegedly sent from Goden's court, is most likely spurious as well;
see his "Sa-skya Pandita's Letter to the Tibetans: A Late and
Dubious Addition to His Collected Works," The Journal of the Tibet
Society 6 (1986): 17-23. Another tradition of Sa-skya Pandita's
invitation is related by an anonymous series of notes of an oral
account (gsung-sgros) of his biography. There we read that, in
accordance with an earlier prophecy by his uncle Rje-btsun Grags-pa
rgyal-mtshan (1147-1216), it was the official/military commander
(dponpo) Dor-ta, who proclaimed Goden's order (lung bsgrags), that
is, "invitation," to him. See the Chos rje pandi ta chen po'i rnam
thar gsung sgros ma, Ngor-chen kun-dga' bzang-po'i bka' `bum, in Sa
skya pa'i bka' `bum, ed., Bsod-nams rgyamtsho (Tokyo: The Toyo
Bunko, 1968), 33/4/3-4.
For some reason, this work was included in the collected writings of
Ngor-chen Kun-dga' bzang-po (1382-1456), although the colophon says
nothing about its authorship, and although it does mention that it
is based on the writings of Blo-gros rgyalmtshan dpal-bzang-po (=
[?]'Phags-pa 1235-1280), Dmar-ston Chos-kyi rgyal-po, Mkhas-pa
Rgyal-ba-dpal, Bi-ji Rin-chengrags, [Sga A-gnyan] Dam-pa
Kun-dga'-grags (1240-1304), Bar-ston Rdo-rje rgyal-mtshan and,
indirectly, Rin-chen-dpal. Absent from this bibliographic remark is
the "middle" biography-in-verse of Sa-skya Pandita attributed to
another one of his disciples, Yar-klungs-pa Grags-pa rgyal-mtshan.
The latter appears to be the oldest work in which Dor-ta is noted as
Goden's envoy to Sa-skya Pandita; see the Chos kyi rje sa skya pandi
ta kun dga' rgyal mtshan dpal bzang po'i rnam par thar pa 'bring po,
The Slob-bshad Tradition of the Sa-skya Lam'bras, vol. 1 (Dehradun:
Sakya Centre, 1983), 68-69. Most Tibetan sources identify Dor-ta
(or: Do-rta, Do-rta nag-po, etc.) as the military commander who
headed the Mongol invasion of Central Tibet in 1240. (14) For a
study of one of these, namely ba[gamma]si, which may, however,
already be attested prior to Tibet's "Mongol period" and which has a
long and checkered history in Tibet, albeit in various orthographic
guises, see my "`Ba[gamma]si' and Ba[gamma]si-s in Tibetan
Historical, Biographical and Lexicographical Literature," which is
under preparation. A recent survey of some Mongol loanwords in Lhasa
Tibetan is T. J. Norbu and T. Takeuchi, "Mongolian Loanwords in
Tibetan and Their Socio-cultural Implications," in Tibetan History
and Language: Studies Dedicated to Uray Geza on His Seventieth
Birthday, ed. E. Steinkellner (Vienna: Arbeitskreis fur Tibetische
und Buddhistische Studien Universitat Wien, 1991), 383-86. (15) Of
course, we have to take into consideration the considerable
editorial distance between the first manuscripts of our sources and
their witnesses that are available to us at the present time. So far
no autographs have been published if, indeed, they have managed to
survive. I am unable to explain the other variant of sogs. (16)
TSHAL 102 [Chen-zhou 1988: 89] where reference is made to El Temur
thai-shri (Ch. taishi [UNKNOWN TEXT OMITTED]); the title is also
written mtha'i-shri and tha'i-hri in TSHAL 107 [Chen-zhou 1988: 94!.
Macdonald (1963: 88, 136, note 155) draws attention to an
interpolated passage in RGYA 116 [RGYA(R) 70b, RGYA(T)L 165! where
we read that "on the sixteenth day of the eighth month of the
iron-male-horse year [1450, the Yingzong emperor] was taken prisoner
by the Mongol minister A-san Thang-shri [= Esen Taishi] (lcags pho
rta lo zla ba brgyad pa'i tshes bcu drug la / hor gyi blon po a san
/["/" must be omitted! thang shris btson la khyer /)." However,
there can be no equivalence between thang-shri and *Jambhala's
title, as she avers, and it does not reflect dishi. Chen (1986: 73)
correctly has it that thang-shri reflects Chinese taishi. For this
title, see H. Serruys, "The Office of Tayisi in Mongolia in the
Fifteenth Century," Harvard Journal of Asiatic Studies 37 (1977):
353-80, especially pp. 361ff. (17) See, for instance, TSHAL 110
[Chen-zhou 1988: 96], where reference is made to Nam-mkha'-dpal
dbon-shri (Ch. yuanshi), and TSHAL 118, 120 [Chen-zhou 1988: 103,
1051 ad Tho-gon (= To[gamma]on) dben-shri (Ch. yuanshi). Both men
were presumably associated with the Xuanzheng Yuan, the "Commission
for Tibetan and Buddhist Affairs." (18) TSHAL 17 [TSHAL1 8b,
Inaba-Sato 1964; 51, Chen-zhou 1988: 151; see A)SO YAR 26 [YAR1 28,
Tang 1989: 20] and RGYA 106 [RGYA(R) 64a, RGYA(T)1 150, Chen 1986:
73]:
... zhes(a) rgya'i deb ther(b) rnying(c) pa las(d) 'dzam(e) bha la
sto shri mgon gyis mthong ba(f) lha sa'i gtsug lag khang du yi ger
bris pa yin no // a. YAR, YAR1 add pa. b. TSHAL1 gter. c. RGYA,
RGYA(T) rnyed. d. TSHAL1, RGYA add /. e. RGYA, RGYA(T) dzam. f. YAR,
YAR1 add /; RGYA, RGYA(T) pa (19) The text reads:
thang tha'i dzung gi sras mo sru'i(a) glen kong jo /(b) bod skad du
mtsho'i nang gi padmo zhes pa de bod du yong(c) ba'i dus su / jo bo
shakya bod du byon /(d) dus de nas da Ita'i bar la(e) lo bdun brgya
'gro ... a. TSHAL1 su'i. b. TSHAL1 adds c. TSHAL1, RGYA, RGYA(T)
'ong. d. RGYA, RGYA(T) jo bo shakya mu ne byon pa yin /. e. RGYA,
RGYA(T) de nas da Ita me pho khyi lo'di'i bar la. (20) On the use of
'gro in chronological determinations, see Z. Yamaguchi, "Methods of
Chronological Calculation in Tibetan Historical Sources," in Tibetan
and Buddhist Studies, vol. 2, ed. L. Ligeti (Budapest: Akademia
Kiado, 1984), 416-17. Yamaguchi also argues, on pp. 409-10, 419,
that the princess arrived in Tibet in 640. Most scholars do not
concur with this. For instance, Chr. Beckwith, The Tibetan Empire in
Central Asia (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1987), 24,
following the Jiu Tangshu 3:52, dates her departure for Tibet to 2
March 641. (21) As is shown by the variant readings, Dpal-'byor
bzangpo departs from Tshal-pa's text in some details and
interpolates(?) - see variant e - "the fire-male-dog year," that is,
1346, intending therefore that the statue arrived in Tibet in 646.
He, or his source, therefore appears to have confused the year in
which this portion of Tshal-pa's text was compiled with the year
during which he received this information from *Jambhala. Tshal-pa's
text resurfaces unimpaired in the corresponding passage of Dpa'-bo
Gtsug-lag phreng-ba's (1504-66) chronicle: see DPA'(P)2 576 [DPA'
1400]. Sections of Tshal-pa's work were undoubtedly compiled in the
year 1346, but, aside from one much later interpolation, other
sections, notably those of the text Of TSHAL, date from the early
1360s. In other words, the text of the Deb ther dmar po throws up
some interesting text-historical questions, which cannot be dealt
with here. (22) What seems to be the earliest report on these
events, is Nian Chang's (1283-?), Fozu lidai tongzai, in Taisho
Issaikyo (Tokyo, 1924-29), vol. 49, no. 2036, 734b2o-2l:
On the fourth month of this year [1323, the imperial court] ordered
the death of Hezun ([UNKNOWN TEXT OMITTED] = Tib. lhabtsun), the
Duke of Ying, in Hexi ([UNKNOWN TEXT OMITTED]). For further details,
see Wang (1981), of which a Tibetan version was published as
"Nan-sung rgyal-rabs-kyi rgyal-po hra'o-di ch'u-zhan-gyi byas-rjes
skor rtog-zhib dang gsal-byed-pa," Bod ljongs zhib jug 2 (1982):
31-56. English versions of this paper are found in "Fragments from
Historical Records About the Life of Emperor Gongdi of the Song
Dynasty," in Contributions on Tibetan Language, History and Culture,
vol. 1, ed. E. Steinkellner and H. Tauscher (Vienna: Arbeitskreis
fur Tibetische und Buddhistische Studien Universitat Wien, 1983),
431-47, and in Tibet Studies: Journal of the Tibetan Academy of
Social Sciences 1 (1989): 24-38. For a critical reaction to Wang's
paper, see Zhen Yijun, "Nan song xiaodi zhaoxian shi," in Xizang
Yanjiu 4 (1984): 51. Wang (1981: 69) quotes an interlinear note in
Pan-chen Bsod-nams grags-pa's (1478-1554) Deb ther dmar po gsar ma
(Lhasa: Bod-ljongs mirigs dpeskrun-khang, 1982), 49, where he
translates the gloss - he reads it as 'dis sa skyar spyi 'dzin mdzad
(the text, however, has spyil, and not spyi-, which is probably not
the Pan-chen's) - by [he] "became the chief of Sa-skya monastery."
The same gloss is also found in the manuscript published in G.
Tucci, Deb-ther dmar-po gsar-ma, Tibetan Chronicles by Bsod-nams
grags-pa, Serie Orientale Roma XXIV (Rome: Istituto Italiano per il
Medio ed Estremo Oriente, 1971), 44a, who does not render it in his
translation on p. 177. The topotactic -r of sa-skyar and spyil 'dzin
mdzad are not fully accommodated in this translation. I take spyil
to be but an abbreviation for "a thatched [or grass] hut used by a
hermit" (spyil-po or spyil-bu; Sanskrit *trnakuti), so that the
phrase rather translates as: "[he] took up [residence in a! thatched
hut in Sa-skya." The rendition of this line in Huang Hao's
translation in Xin Hongshi (Lhasa: Xizang Minzu Chubanshe, 1985),
47, by, "At Sa-kya, this person assumed the position of chief
supporter," is therefore also not acceptable (23) TSHAL 25 [TSHAL 1
12b, Inaba-Sato 1964: 59-60, Chen-Zhou 1988: 221; see also YAR 34
[YAR1 35-36, Tang 1989: 25]:
se chen rgyal(a) po(a) rgyal sar bzhugs nas(b) ci dben lo bcu gsum
pa'i dus su(c) sman rtse'i(d) rgyal po g.yi'u ju(e) rgyal sar
sdad(f) nas lo gsum song ba la / ba yan ching(g) sang gis sung(h) gi
rgyal khams blangs te/(i) rgyal po sa(j) skyar btang /(k) lha btsun
byas / rting la ge gan rgyal po'i dus su bsad pas khrag 'o mar byung
ngo / hor gyi rgyal khams ta'i dben zer / zhes pa 'dzam bha la sto
shri mgon gyis smras pa bris pa'o// a. YAR, YAR1 Omit. b. TSHAL1,
YAR add C. YAR, YAR1 add /. d. TSHAL1 tshe, YAR, YAR1 tse'i. e. YAR,
YAR1 g.ye'i-chu. f. TSHAL1, YAR, YAR1 bsdad. g. TSHAL1 'ching. h.
TSHAL1 gsung, YAR dpung. i. TSHAL1 Omits. j. TSHAL1 Omits. k. YAR,
YAR1 Omit. (24) See F. W. Cleaves, "The Biography of Bayan of the
Barin in the Yuan Shih," Harvard Journal of Asiatic Studies 19
(1956): 257. (25) In TSHAL *1, Dung-dkar Blo-bzang 'phrin-las writes
that this took place in 1324. The anonymous Rgyal rabs sogs bod kyi
yig tshang gsal ba'i me long, Sngon gyi gtam me tog gi 'phreng ba ..
(Dharamsala: Library of Tibetan Works and Archives, 1985), 116,
writes "aged seventeen [= sixteen]," that is to say, he went to the
Mongol court in 1325. (26) TSHAL 149 [TSHAL1 38b-39a, Inaba-sat6
1964: 194, Chen-Zhou 1988: 128-29!. (27) For a discussion of "Da
Yuan," see H. Franke, From Tribal Chieftain to Universal Emperor and
God: The Legitimation of the Yuan Dynasty, Bayerische Akademie der
Wissenschaften, phil.-hist. Klasse, Sitzungsberichte (Munich:
Bayerischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, 1978), 2:26-29. (28) For
these documents, of which only a portion has been recovered, see P.
Heng-chao Ch'en, Chinese Legal Tradition under the Mongols
(Princeton: Princeton Univ. Press, 1979), 25-30, 36-38, and the
literature cited there, and recently Han Rulin, ed., Yuanchao shi,
vol. I (Beijing: Renmin Chubanshe, 1986), 326-28. Dpal-'byor
bzang-po writes at RGYA 269-70 [RGYA(R) 164a, RGYA(T)1 384-85, Chen
1986: 164-65]:
de'i don / ji Ita bu yi zer ba yi ge'i nang na yod pas / khen dben
zer ba'i yig brus / yangs pa dang / chen po rgyas pa di yin par song
na / bden pa / brtan pa'i gdan sa zer ba yin no // rta'i dben mthong
ji'i deb ther zer ba'ang / rgyal khams chen por / khrims kyi bya ba
phra rags byed tshul rnams / zhib par btab yod pa'i rta'i dben
mthong ji /
While the reference to the Da Yuan tongzhi at RGYA 116 [RGYA(R) 70a,
RGYA(T)I, 164, Chen 1986: 73! already found mention in Macdonald
(1963: 88), it was first positively identified as a source used by
Dpal-'byor bzang-po in L. Petech, "The Mongol Census in Tibet," in
Tibetan Studies in Honour of Hugh Richardson, ed. M. Aris and Aung
San Suu Kyi (Warminster: Aris & Phillips, 1980), 233, ad the
occurrence of its title at RGYA 288 [RGYA(R) 175a-b, RGYA(T)L 412,
Chen 1986: 178]. (29) RGYA 115-16 [RGYA(R) 70a, RGYA(T)L 164, Chen
1986: 731. (30) N.Ts. Munkuyev, "Two Mongolian Printed Fragments
from Khara-khoto," in Mongolian Studies, ed. L. Ligeti (Amsterdam:
B. R. Gruner, 1970), 347ff. (31) RGYA 288 [RGYA(R) 175a-b, RGYA(T)L
412, Chen 1986: 178, Petech 1990: 97-981:
yi ge di'i ngo bo / cong zhu zhing gi khrims ra na / bca' tshe
blangs dug pa / de'i ngo shus / sbeg so kha ching sang gis / dpon
chen dbang phyug brtson 'grus bdag la byin nas / yu gur gyi yi ge
ngo bo / ta'i dben thong ji'i deb ther / hor yig ma dang lhan du yod
pa / yar lung pas khyer 'dug na'ang / don di rnams blo la yod pas
skabs don bris pa yin /
(32) In cursive Tibetan so and bo look virtually identical. On Beg
Boqa, see Petech (1990: 97-98). (33) The interpretation of this
passage in Petech (1990: 97-98) needs to be modified on several
counts. In the first place, Dpal-'byor bzang-po does not allege that
the Da Yuan tongzhi - the title of this work is omitted by L.
Petech, but the context demands that he had this in mind when he
writes of a "covenant" - was a "covenant between 'Phags-pa and
Qubilai which exists in the original in the office (khrims-ra) of
the Central Secretariat." This is impossible for chronological
reasons, although one cannot a priori discount the possibility that
it contained a section (or sections) on the two spheres of
influence, secular and spiritual, or on the juridical status of
monks and monasteries. In fact, this is explicitly indicated at RGYA
116 [RGYA(R) 70a, RGYA(T)1 164, Chen 1986: 73], where we read that
the text had to do with the two "legal systems/two types of
governance" (khrims-gnyis, *qoyar ja-sa[gamma]). Earlier, Petech
(1990: 90, note 17) put forth the hypothesis that the text's
"Yar-lung-pa" refers to "Rdo-rje Yar-lungs-pa" or "Rdo-rje seng-ge
Yar-lungs-pa," already a senior official in Central Tibet in circa
1295, who "probably ... brought to Tibet the Da Yuan tongzhi in the
original Uighur script together with a copy in the Hor script."
Dpal-'byor bzang-po's yar lung pas 'khyer 'dug na'ang can only be
interpreted in the sense of although was taken away/carried off by
Yar-lung-pa," as was also done by Chen Qingying. This passage may
even be autobiographical, so that, on this basis, we should be able
to discount the identity of this "Yar-lung-pa" with Rdo-rje seng-ge.
If it be not autobiographical, but rather a passage which Dpal-b'yor
bzang-po culled from an unidentified source, then we would have to
assume that Rdo-rje seng-ge lived a very long life indeed, for the
Beg Boqa only became chengxiang in 1328, and was executed in the
following year. I should like to propose that this "Yar-lung-pa" may
perhaps be identified with Yar-lung Jo-bo, whose chronicle includes
a great deal of material on Tibet's Mongol period that is not found
in Tshalpa's chronicle, although he, too, does not mention the Da
Yuan tongzhi. To be noted is, furthermore, that these portions of
Yar-lung Jo-bo's treatise, together with supplementary material, are
also met with in Dpal-'byor bzang-po's compilation. (34) Three
Tibetan versions are available of this work, of which one, namely
TAI, was translated into Chinese, for which, see TAIch; on the three
Tibetan versions, see my "On the Life and Political Career of
Ta'i-si-tu Byang-chub rgyal-mtshan 1302-?1364)," in Tibetan History
and Language: Studies Dedicated to Uray Geza on His Seventieth
Birthday, ed. E. Steinkellner (Vienna: Arbeitskreis fur Tibetische
und Buddhistische Studien Universitat Wien, 1991), 278-79, note 2.
On p. 306 of this paper, I interpreted the phrase si tu [ba] bzhugs
'o [b]rgyal as "Ta'i-si-tu is well]" The Chinese translation of the
text was not available for consultation at the time I wrote this
paper; TAIch 198 interprets this phrase by: situ zhibu, xinku le],
"Si-tu stay [where you are, it is too] bothersome for you [to come
here]]" This is the correct interpretation, and mine was wrong. The
entries for 'o brgyal in the dictionaries are not free from
unambiguity. G. N. Roerich, Tibetan-Russian-English Dictionary,
issue 8, ed. Y. Parfionovich and V. Dylykova (Moscow: Nauka
Publishers, 1986), 206, reads "fatigue," and "to be fatigued" for
the verbal form 'o-brgyal-ba. On the other hand, Zhang Yisun, ed.,
Bod rgya tshig mdzod chen mo / Zang Han da cidian, vol. 3 (Beijing:
Minzu Chubanshe), 2525-26, has two entries for "o- brgyal; dka' las
khag po dang thang chad pa, "difficult(y) and tiresome/ing," and lam
zhugs kyi mgron po slebs par khams bde zhu ba'i zhe tshig gam thugs
rje che zhu ba, "a polite way for
asking after [someone's] well-being when traveling, or
an expression of thanks." The two meanings are met with in,
respectively, the uses of 'o brgyal bar gyur in 'Jigs-meddbangs'
biography of Bo-dong Pan-chen Phyogs las rnam rgyal (1375-1451) of
1453 - Bo dong Phyogs las rnam rgyal gyi rnam thar (Chengdu:
Si-khron mi-rigs dpe-skrun-khang, 1990), 166 [see also, Encyclopedia
Tibetica: The Collected Works of Bo-dong Phyogs-las rnam-rgyal, vol.
I (New Delhi: The Tibet House, 1981, 230)!-and 'o brgyal che in
Gungthang Dkon-mchog bstan-pa'i sgron-me's (1762-1823) biography of
Dkon-mchog 'jigs-med dbang-po (1728-91) of 1799, Dus gsum rgyal ba'i
spyi gzugs rje btsun dkon mchog 'jigs med dbang po'i zhal snga nars
kyi rnam par thar pa rgyal sras rgya mtsho'i jug ngogs, The
Collected Works of Dkon-mchog 'jigs-med dbang-po, vol. I (New Delhi,
1971), 135. (35) TAI 267-68 [TAI1 596, TAI2 174, TAIch 184]. (36)
TAI 186 [TAI1 403-4, Tai2 89, TAIch 132]; TAI1 omits horskad-du:
dpon chen dbang brtson gyis(a)/'di mi ngan pa gcig yin zer ba(c) /
de(d) mi bden par 'dug mi' di tsam gyis(e) mig nas mchi(f) ma yong
gi'dug pa /(g)'di dka'(h) mo'i bya ba yin zer ba /
a. TAI1, TAI2 omit. e. TAI1, Tai2 gyi.
b. TAI zhig. f. TAI1 chi.
C. TAI, TAI1 Omit. g. TAI1 Omits.
d. TAI1, TAI2 omit. h. TAI1 bka'.
(37) Ruegg (1966: 122, 23a). Bha-de's title of ching dben (Ch. qian
yuan [UNKNOWN TEXT OMITTED] "department secretary," is found in
connection with various Yuan government departments, such as the
Commission of Tibetan and Buddhist Affairs, the Bureau of Military
Affairs, the Bureau for Imperial Household Provisions, and the
Imperial Academy for Medicine. Given the nature of the mission, it
is likely that Bha-de was affiliated with the first of these. The
expression qian yuan seems also attested in one of the biographies
of Karma-pa Ill Rang-'byung rdo-rje (1284-1338), namely in the one
compiled by Si-tu Pan-chen Chos-kyi 'byung-gnas (1699-1774), who
writes, at si 215, that a Ra-dza-ta tshen-dben and Zam-bha'o met the
Karma-pa in Amdo as he was en route to the court in the beginning of
the year 1332; see also Schuh (1977: 132-33). Further, we learn at
TSHAL 102 [Chen-Zhou 1988: 89]-a similar passage is also found at si
217-that a certain Grags-pa brtson-'grus was appointed
tshen-dbon/dben of the tha'i-hi-dben. Chen Qingying and Zhou Runnian
give can yuan [UNKNOWN TEXT OMITTED]"?", and Taihui Yuan [UNKNOWN
TEXT OMITTED] as the Chinese original for the two expressions. As
far as I can gather, neither are attested for the Yuan period. It is
quite possible that tha'i-hi-dben reflects Taiyi Yuan, [UNKNOWN TEXT
OMITTED], "Imperial Academy of Medicine," for which see P.
Ratchnevsky, Un Code des Yuan, vol. 2 (Paris: Presses Universitaires
de France, 1972), 47ff. The taiyi yuan had two qian yuans associated
with it so that there is a good possibility that tshen-dbon/dben
also reflects qian yuan. For the last two Tibetan passages, see now
also Chen Qingying, "Gemaba rangjiong duoji liangci jin jing
shilue," Zhongguo Zangxue 3 (1988): 89-99. (38) Towards the end of
the year 1352, Bu-ston wrote a little work on the proportions of the
Mahabodhistupa according to the Vimalaprabha-commentary of the
Kalacakratantra, entitled the Byang chub chen po'i mchod rten gyi
tshad; see The Collected Works of Bu-ston [and Sgra-tshad-pal [Lhasa
print] (New Delhi: International Academy of Indian Culture, 1971),
14:551-57, and Ruegg (1966: 135). This work was translated into
Chinese as the Da puti tayang chicun fa and is contained in what is
likely a Yuan dynasty collection of Tibetan Buddhist esoterica, for
which see the Dacheng yaotao miji (Taibei: Ziyou Chubanshe, 1986),
353-57. For this bundle of very interesting texts, see the valuable
analysis in Chr. I. Beckwith, "A Hitherto Unnoticed Yuan-Period
Collection Attributed to 'Phags-pa," in Tibetan and Buddhist
Studies, vol. 1, ed. L. Ligeti (Budapest: Akademiai Kiado, 1984),
9-16, and for Bu-ston's text specifically, p. 15 no. 21, where
"[*Bu-ston?]" can now read "[*Bu-ston]", and where the scribe's name
"Lingchan nanjiale," certainly reflects "[Sgratshad-pa] Rin-chen
rnam-rgyal." (39) On him, see L. Petech, "Imperial Princes of the
Yuan Period Connected with Tibet," in Indo-tibetan Studies: Papers
in Honour of Professor D. L. Snellgrove, ed. T. Skorupski (Tring,
1990), 296-97. The very brief entry on him in Dpal-b'yor bzang-po's
text at RGYA 267 (RGYA(R) 162a, RGYA(T)1 380, Chen 1986: 1621, is
probably owed to Yar-lung Jo-bo's note at YAR 86 [TAR1 87, Tang
1989: 54]. He is also mentioned at TSHAL 115 [Chen-Zhou 1988: 100]
as Srad-nya (sic]). (40) For the text, translation and a discussion
of its date, see Tucci (1949: 672, 752-54, 705-6, note 987). His
argumentation for dating this document to the year 1355 is
convincing, although it would imply several other imperial
invitations after 1344 and prior to 1355, of which there is,
however, no record as yet. This document is also reproduced in Krung
go'i bod sa gnas kyi lo rgyus yig tshang phyogs bsdus, ed. 'Phrinlas
chos-grags (Lhasa: Bod-1jongs mi-rigs dpe-skrun-khang, 1986),
250-52, where it is dated to the year 1343. In the Bod kyi lo rgyus
yig tshags dang gzhung yig phyogs bsdus dwangs shel me long, ed.
Bkra-shis dbang-'dus (Pe-cin: Mi-rigs dpe-skrun-khang, 1989),
213-14, it is dated to 1355. This particular document was on exhibit
in September of 1991 in the museum of the Cultural Palace for the
Minorities, Beijing, where the caption read that it contained an
order of To[gamma]on Temur for Bu-ston to remain in Tibet proper!
(41) Petech (1990: 124-25, note 156), where he refers to TAI1 646.
It is perhaps preferable to read [UNKNOWN TEXT OMITTED] instead of
[UNKNOWN TEXT OMITTED]. (42) TAI 289 has to-shri-mgon, whereas TAI2
207 reads dushri-mgon. He is mentioned again in an entry dated
slightly prior to the New Year of 1358, where TAI 299 has
to-shrimgon, TAI1 670 tu-shri-mgon, and TAI2 207 du-shri-mgon. The
third and last time where he is noted is in an entry for sometime in
1359 in a passage at TAI 315-16 with the reading toshri-mgon, and
TAI1 707 and TA[2 224 with but shri-mgon. TAIch 198, 205, 216
transcribe this phrase by daoshigun in every instance. (43) For the
former, see above note 4; for Dpa'-bo, see DPA' 1400, although it is
absent in the blockprint Of DPA'(P)2 576. This is not to say that
the Mongol term jar[gamma]uci was unknown in written Tibetan. We
meet with it as "jar-go-che of Dbusgtsang" in the biographical note
on Rdo-rje mgon-po; see Dpal-ldan chos-kyi bzang-po's Sde pa g.yas
ru byang pa'i rgyal rabs rin po che'i bstar ba, Rare Tibetan
Historical and Literary Texts from the Library of Tsepon W. D.
Shakabpa, series one (New Delhi, 1974), 173. (44) D. M. Farquhar,
The Oirats in the Ming Shih-lu 1403-1446, M.A. diss., Univ. of
Washington (Seattle, 1955), 101. (45) Petech (1990: 102).
BIBLIOGRAPHIC ABBREVIATIONS
Chen Qingying. Han Zang shiji. Lhasa: Xizang Renmin Chubanshe, 1986.
Translation of RGYA. Chen Qingying and Zhou Runnian. Hongshi. Lhasa:
Xizang Renmin Chubanshe, 1988. Translation of TSHAL. DPA' Dpa'-bo
Gtsug-lag phreng-ba. Chos 'byung mkhas pa'i dga' ston, ed. Rdo-rje
rgyal-po. 2 vols. Beijing: Minzu Chubanshe, 1986. DPA'(P) Dpa'-bo
Gtsug-lag phreng-ba. Chos 'byung mkhas pa'i dga' ston, 2 vols. New
Delhi, 1980. Inaba, Sh. and Sato, H. Huran deputeru (Hu-lan
deb-ther) - chibetto nendaiki. Kyoto, 1964. Translation of an edited
version of TSHAL1. Macdonald, A. "Preambule a la lecture d'un Rgya
bod yig tshang." Journal Asiatique CCLI (1963): 53-159. Petech, L.
Central Tibet and the Mongols. The Yuan-Sa-skya Period of Tibetan
History. Serie Orientale Roma LXV. Rome: Istituto Italiano per il
Medio ed Estremo Oriente, 1990. RGYA Stag-tshang-pa Dpal-'byor
bzang-po. Rgya bod yig tshang chen mo. Ed. Dung-dkar Blo-bzang
'phrin-las. Chengdu: Si-khron mi-rigs dpe-skrun-khang, 1985. RGYA(R)
Ibid. Rgya bod kyi yig tshang mkhas pa dga' byed chen mo'i dkar chab
gdog(!). J.F. Rock manuscript. East Asia Library, University of
Washington. RGYA(T) Ibid. Rgya bod yig tshang mkhas pa dga' byed. 2
vols. Thimphu, 1979. Schuh, D. Erlasse und Sendschreiben
mongolischer Herrscher fur tibetische Geistliche. Skt. Augustin:
Wissenschaftsverlag, 1977. Ruegg, D. S. The Life of Bu ston rin po
che. Serie Orientale Roma XXXIV. Rome: Istituto Italiano per il
Medio ed Estremo Oriente, 1966. SI Si-tu Pan-chen Chos-kyi
'byung-gnas. Bsgrub [b]rgyud karma kam tshang brgyud pa rin po che'i
rnam par thar pa rab 'byams nor bu zla ba chu shel gyi phreng ba.
Vol. 1, New Delhi, 1972. TAI Ta'i-si-tu Byang-chub rgyal-mtshan.
Bka' chems mthong ba don ldan. Rlangs kyi po ti bse ru. Ed.
Chab-spel Tshebrtan phun-tshogs. Lhasa: Bodjongs mi-rigs
dpe-skrun-khang, 1987. Pp. 103-373. TAI1 Ibid. Lha rigs rlangs kyi
rnam thar. New Delhi, 1974. Pp. 212-836. TAI2 Ibid. Ta si tu Byang
chub rgyal mtshan gyi bka' chems. Lhasa: Bod-ljongs mi-rigs
dpe-skrun-khang, 1989. Pp. 1-282. TAIch Zanla Awang and Yu Wanshi.
Lang shijiazu shi. Ed. Chen Qingying. Lhasa: Xizang Renmin
Chubanshe, 1989. Translation of TAI. Tang Chi'an. Yalong zunzhe
jiaofa shi. Lhasa: Xizang Renmin Chubanshe, 1989. Translation of
YAR. TSHAL Tshal-pa Kun-dga' rdo-rje. Deb ther dmar po. Ed. and
comm. Dung d-kar Blo-bzang 'phrin-las. Pre-cin: Mi-rigs
dpe-skrun-khang, 1981. TSHAL1 Ibid. Gangtok, 1961. Wang Yao. "Nan
Song xiaodi zhaoxian yishi kaobian." Xizang yanjiu 1 (1981): 65-76.
YAR Yar-lung Jo-bo Sakya-rin-chen. Yar lung chos 'byung. Ed. Dbyangs
- can. Chengdu: Si-khron mi-rigs dpe-skrun-khang, 1988. YAR1 Ibid.
Ed. Ngag-dbang. Lhasa: Bod-ljongs mi-rigs dpe-skrun-khang, 1988.